WORDS FROM THE PAST: JAMES MADISON ON THE ROLE OF ELECTED LEADERS

The former president (and now U. S. congressman) John Quincy Adams made this impassioned plea at the conclusion of an antislavery speech late in 1844 as the U. S. Congress considered the annexation of Texas. As he shared with his constituents his fears that the annexation of Texas would enlarge the empire of slavery, Adams exhorted them to consider their ancestors as well as their descendants in deciding how to respond to the political turmoil of their day. It was good advice then, and it’s good advice now, which is why I’ve promised to share words from the past from time to time that might be relevant as we make sense of this year’s contentious presidential campaign.

James Madison

Here then, is another favorite passage from the Federalist Papers, that compilation of eighty-five essays that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (with the brief assistance of John Jay) wrote in defense of the newly-proposed Constitution. It’s taken from Federalist no. 63 and comes from the pen of James Madison, the slight Virginian often remembered as the “father” of the Constitution. In context, Madison was making a case for the proposed structure of the U. S. Senate. In the passage below he makes no bones about the role that he hoped the Senate would play:

I shall not scruple to add that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?

To understand what Madison is saying here, we need a sense of his view of human nature. Madison, like the Founders generally, thought that men and women were guided by three different faculties. The rarest was reason, a logical quality of mind that points reliably toward virtuous decisions that promote the general welfare of the larger society. More common was what he called interest, which is essentially the rational calculation of individual self-interest. Most common, and most dangerous, was passion, an irrational faculty dominated by prejudice and emotion.

To oversimplify, reason rationally promotes the common good, interest rationally promotes individual self-interest, and passion may irrationally (if unintentionally) undermine both. Because the majority would not always be guided by reason, the role of the Senate would sometimes be to counter popular passions.

Bottom line: In Madison’s view, the role of the responsible government leader was typically to moderate popular passions, not inflame them.

3 responses to “WORDS FROM THE PAST: JAMES MADISON ON THE ROLE OF ELECTED LEADERS”

Because people no longer believe in those three motivators of human action this purpose for having the Senate is sadly lost on most Americans, including the Senators themselves. What we believe about our humanity really mayters!

It is mighty hard to read the above without thinking of one obvious (and unnamed) candidate currently seeking the Presidency. It is just as obvious that the majority of us seek our self interest and, in fact, are encouraged to do so as basic to the democratic process. This candidate has managed to acquire a large number of supporters with his insulting and ranting style. Are these supporters merely acting out of passion or is it their self-interest that is the motivation. The fear that many have is that if such a person is elected to the Presidency, given the expanded powers of that office, would the Senate or any other part of government have the power to rein him in?